Ideal HRs to slow down the game in PBEM ?

[veji1]

Hi guys, I have started playing a bit of PBEM with a friend who shares a similar philosophy as mine, ie we want to have fun, bash each other, yet have the feeling we are sort of reenacting the civil war and not being "uber" efficient. Yet the goal is for the game to be competitive, for us to try and win, (ie as the north crush my face, and me as the south, bloody his nose and then survive long enough).

So my question is what could be good HRs to slow down the game ? I have one in mind :
- for example that until april 62, so for the first year, half of all conscript points should be spent on recruiting militias. Tied to this is an HR for militias : Until the formation of corps they must stay in their state of origin. This would of course advantage the CSA in a sense : the CSA player has to raise troops in all states to protect his coastal ports + when the union moves into Tennesse or Virginia, he gets to use those militias to fight whereas the NY or ILL militias aren't gonna have fun... Yet I feel this would work for the best in ensuring a lower quality of troops throughout the early to middle game (lots of militias around), making the player choose harder on which troops to spend his half remaining conscript points (mainly cavalry for the west and transmississippi ? some solid inf brigades ? arty ?) What I have in mind is that basically in 61 the "free" troops a player gets from the army assembling events should be the spearhead of one's army, the rest of it being but a badly organised rabble. + such a rule would also make generals with militiamen or patriot traits more useful in game since there is lots of militia going around. The training officers like Halleck would emulate the "graduating" system. in 62 when corps become available militias would be led to the front in vast amount by the north particularly which would then use them to all lower grade needs (garisonning, etc.). Another point I like is that in states with dual attachment like Missouri and Kentucky, both sides could muster boatloads of militia to fight each other, emulating pretty well the "civil war" aspect in those states.

What do you guys think ? are they other suggestions baring in the mind the way I like to play the game (disclaimer : I am not pretending the way I like to play the game is better or more realistic or whatever, this is just how I enjoy it) ?

Thanks for the input.

[BattleVonWar]

I think your idea has a lot of merit. The fact that people have cut, franchised and elite supermen in large quantity very early on and avoid the militia and or raw recruits is simple, they run and cause lots of running :P

I am not sure what would happen with the battles when these troops would randomly lose their stomachs :P it would definitely have a historical feel and you could see whole fronts collapse just in a pinch. Though would require a large portion of Militia units and it would require penalty to maybe unlock these Militia like a huge NM/Warscore hit...at the risk of gaining large masses of ground? Something to entice the player to perhaps mass large super armies of green soldiers to get eaten. Though I'm certain in short order a few pros would develop a strategy or tactic not to put these units to use but keep them in the rear with the gear and get trained up into super troopers :P

25% of the Union men at Antietam had never been combat!

P.S. The Civil War had been going on in places like Kansas long before it had been going on in the rest of the country(but these places are worthless, they should be assigned a control NM%) one of my gaming buddies said it would be wise to assign each state a value, I think it would and would utilize a broader stroke strategy to the game

[FightingBuckeye]

Interesting idea. Would the troops that Halleck & Little Mac trained up still be tied to their states? If you're trying to slow the game down, a couple people limit mobilization usage until a certain date and it might complement your HR pretty well. Since partial mobilizations would create a huge influx of CS, a greater number of regular units would be available and might go against your intent.

[veji1]

Interesting idea. Would the troops that Halleck & Little Mac trained up still be tied to their states? If you're trying to slow the game down, a couple people limit mobilization usage until a certain date and it might complement your HR pretty well. Since partial mobilizations would create a huge influx of CS, a greater number of regular units would be available and might go against your intent.

Thanks for all the answers. The reason I had this HR in mind rather than just limiting the number of troops to be raised, is that those state tied militias creat "mud" that slows down the game because they make efficient offense more difficult, mainly for the union: you have considerably less troops to attack with against a defense that benefits from the opposite : because both sides must recruit boatloads of militia, the south gets some sort of "free" defense forces for their different states, such as for their different important coastal cities, which they would have had to recruit anyway. I'll play test it and let you guys know how it changes the feel of the game. Basically my hope is that it makes it harder for the union steamroller to gain steam until late 62 + that it makes battles more unpredictable until the middle game because a player having managed to concentrate quality troops against militias could get lopsided results, resulting in loss of troops and NM.

If some guys have other ideas, I am very open to suggestions.

[minipol]

As for ideas to HR's:

- The Union can't launch early attacks on Richmond, needs to field an army with minimum power in Washington.
This to reflect McClellan's ways.

- Cap the number of artillery pieces the Union can use in a division at the start of the war to reflect the CSA being better
at organizing armies. This limitation is removed after a certain date.

- Another one that could be fun: the Union is to attack NO, Charleston, Savannah or Norfolk before a certain date.

[Gray Fox]

Actually, the militia use is what I already do in my eastern steamroller strategy. I have a garrison Division with a General, sharpshooter, the brigade with a conscript, early cavalry and a 6-lber and the rest militia. One garrison Division then gets entrenched inside of St. Louis, Cairo, Evansville, Louisville, Cincinnati, Ashland, Parkersburg, Wheeling, Pittsburgh and Fredericktown. So that is 120 militia in 1861, which should be at least half of the conscript points. I also continue from that point on to train 6 militia per turn with McClellan/Halleck/Sigel. So more than half of each new Division per month get equipped with militia that were trained to line infantry. An artillery Division doesn't take a lot of conscript points either. So your opponent should still have a formidible force by summer of '62 with your HR.

[Rod Smart]

Not sure that all militia favors the South, due to the three trainers that the North gets.

If you want a house rule that slows the game down, mandate a focus on your economy. Buy all those armories and factories as soon as they are available, and perhaps all of the Brigs (CSA) and transports (US). That will minimize the early buying of troops, while setting both sides up for a long game.

[Gray Fox]

Veji1, you and your friend could just play after consuming a lot of beer.

[minipol]

That might be the best most fun HR suggested

[veji1]

Actually, the militia use is what I already do in my eastern steamroller strategy. I have a garrison Division with a General, sharpshooter, the brigade with a conscript, early cavalry and a 6-lber and the rest militia. One garrison Division then gets entrenched inside of St. Louis, Cairo, Evansville, Louisville, Cincinnati, Ashland, Parkersburg, Wheeling, Pittsburgh and Fredericktown. So that is 120 militia in 1861, which should be at least half of the conscript points. I also continue from that point on to train 6 militia per turn with McClellan/Halleck/Sigel. So more than half of each new Division per month get equipped with militia that were trained to line infantry. An artillery Division doesn't take a lot of conscript points either. So your opponent should still have a formidible force by summer of '62 with your HR.

Hmmm.. Thanks for the comment, not easy to find a good middle ground.. my point is that I would want only a smallish spearhead for each armies to be really mobile and active until mid62, hmm, what else would you think could achieve that result. I don't want to limit the gameplay itself once the players have the troops (ie no rule like forced coastal invasion or forbidden coastal invasion, etc...).

Thanks for the comment though.

[Gray Fox]

You're most welcome!

Three conscript or line infantry cost the same as four militia. I have several places where the militia stay in their home state and get the benefit of continuosly entrenching. So for the Union, your HR is really what they should be doing in 1861. The Union can also eventually train a dozen militia to line infantry each month for most of any Division's strength. So I find that HR to be a good idea for the Union too.

If you limit the action until mid to late 1862, then you pretty much kill any chance the South has to accomplish anything before the Union is too strong. In the OP you mentioned being the South, so...

If you move the capital from Richmond to Atlanta before it falls to a siege, then you should get a long game. Don't forget to have some defenses set for ATL. The Union can sail Brigs/Transports right up the river without any forts all the way to Macon from the Atlantic sea box in one turn.

[RebelYell]

Dont use the river movement order at all, it is the single most unrealistic feature in the game.